how do you rule?

[mjswinona]

RHO opens 1NT (15-17), you double, alerted as equal value or better. Partner bids 2 spades, alerted as transfer to clubs. This is not marked on the convention card, but a response of 2S after partner opens 1NT is marked as a transfer to clubs. RHO bids 3H after the 2S bid, which you double. Down 4. After completion of the hand, partner explains that there was no agreement on his bid after the double of 1NT and he was showing a spade suit. The director is called to the table. How do you rule?[hv=pc=n&s=sk64h7642dt53ct83&w=sjt983h95d98cq542&n=sq75hakt3dkqj2c96&e=sa2hqj8da764cakj7&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1ndp2s3hdppp]399|300[/hv]

[sfi]

I start by looking at the hand, the vulnerability, the type of scoring, and the quality of players involved. Questions I am interested in include:

 

• Would a correct explanation have been likely to change RHO's choice of 3H?
  
• Was partner's pass of the double influenced by the explanation?
  

[mjswinona]

I start by looking at the hand, the vulnerability, the type of scoring, and the quality of players involved. Questions I am interested in include:

 

• Would a correct explanation have been likely to change RHO's choice of 3H?
  
• Was partner's pass of the double influenced by the explanation?
  

 

Declarer (N) vul. Defenders non-vul. Match point scoring. All experienced players. Properly played, 3H is down 1 against any defense. (Against best defense, E-W can make 2 spades or 3 clubs.)

[Cyberyeti]

Please include the whole hand, it makes it much easier to work this out.

 

Questions:

 

Was the hand that bid 3♥ less likely to do so over a spade bid than a club bid ?

Was the play just abysmal, or was it due to the MI causing declarer to assume the layout was rather different ?

 

My inclination would be that the answers would be no and the latter and an adjustment to 3♥x-1 but I'd need to see the hand and ask some questions

[billw55]

After completion of the hand, partner explains that there was no agreement on his bid after the double of 1NT and he was showing a spade suit.

In this case, should partner have offered a correction before opening lead?

[pran]

In this case, should partner have offered a correction before opening lead?

Sure.

See Law 20 F 5 (b) (ii)

[peterb001]

Sure.

See Law 20 F 5 (b) (ii)

 

In this case it's the defenders who gave the incorrect information, so it's Law 20 F 5 (b) (i), and so only at the end of play.

[barmar]

Please include the whole hand, it makes it much easier to work this out.

And use a bidding diagram, rather than all the LHO/RHO/partner stuff.

 

Click on the spade icon in the editor toolbar to create a hand diagram.

[pran]

In this case it's the defenders who gave the incorrect information, so it's Law 20 F 5 (b) (i), and so only at the end of play.

Quite true.

Sorry, I read it as "partner" was on the declaring side.

My mistake.

[blackshoe]

We have the bidding at least. I think. :P

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(Ann.%2015-17)d(Alrt%3A%20equal%20or%20better)p2s(Alrt%3A%20xfer-%3EClubs)3hdppp]133|100[/hv]

 

Some questions:

 

1. What is the jurisdiction? Probably ACBL, but we need to know.

2. Was "systems on" over X filled in on either N's or S's card?

3. Was 2♠ in an uncontested auction actually a transfer, or was it a relay?

4. What would 2NT by S W have meant in both an uncontested auction and this one?

5 and 6. sfi's two questions, which don't seem to have been answered yet.

7. If N thought S had a minor, why did he bid 3H? What did he think it meant?

8. What were all four hands?

 

Comments:

 

20F5{b}{i} is the correct law on when S should correct N's explanation, i.e. after the play.

Apparently there was no damage (3♥X, down 4, Vul, is +1100 for EW who, says OP, can only make a part score) so there would be no score adjustment.

Edited January 6, 2017 by blackshoe
I screwed up the auction.

[TylerE]

We have the bidding at least. I think. :P

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(Ann.%2015-17)d(Alrt%3A%20equal%20or%20better)2s(Alrt%3A%20xfer-%3EClubs)p3hdppp]133|100[/hv]

 

You have the auction wrong.

 

It's

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1ndp2s(%22transfer%20to%20clubs%22)3hdppp]133|100[/hv]

[blackshoe]

You have the auction wrong.

 

It's

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1ndp2s(%22transfer%20to%20clubs%22)3hdppp]133|100[/hv]

You're right. I'll fix it. I suppose it changes things. I'll fix that too, if I can.

[mycroft]

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(15-17)dp2s(Alerted%20as%20clubs)3hdppp]133|100|West meant his call as natural - but what's the agreement?[/hv]

There are those who have the agreement that "1NT systems are on" after (1NT)-X-(p), the way they do after 1NT-(X) or (1♠)-1NT-(p). I think this ranks right up there with "4♣ always Gerber" in value, but they would say the same about my "Gerber is baby food" agreement.

 

Unfortunately, there are those who think this is standard and bid like that with everybody, including those who agree with me about that validity of said agreement.

 

Also unfortunately, at least where I direct, there's no place to clearly state this abomination on the card, so there is rarely if ever any evidence one way or the other.

 

Therefore I rule as we normally do - I investigate, and try to determine their real agreement, which may be "we have no agreement, one thought one thing, one thought another"; it could be "he says we discussed this, but I don't remember"; it could be "we did discuss that and I told him that he was out of his mind and I would never play such a stupid thing"; it could be "yeah, I play that with another partner and forgot how this partnership runs from partner's double", it could be "I only play this with this partner, and just forgot", it could be...

 

Then we look at the 2♠ bidder to see if he would do something different after 3♥x if partner had explained it as a confident "natural, what else could it be?" I doubt it, but since there's always a UI case in a MI/misbid case, we look at it.

 

Then, assuming the opponents were in fact misinformed (and 2♠ wasn't a misbid, for instance), we look to see if 3♥ was influenced by which black suit the 2♠ bidder "has". That requires the hands, the form of scoring, the players' level, ... There are those who will open 5M332s 1NT, and will always bid their 5-card major or 6-card minor again, even at the 3 level, even after 1NT-X-p. If we determine that the misinformation did not influence the 3♥ call, or that the 3♥ call was so bad anyway, then the score will stand (perhaps only for the 3♥ bidders). Perhaps the score will be rolled back to 3♣=. Perhaps the play to 3♥X was so bad that it cuts the connection to the infraction, and opener gets to keep her -1100.

 

UI/MI rulings are complicated, and require a lot of information, and players who ask me about these things at the bar almost never have enough information for me to give my opinion, never mind a ruling (especially because they're biased to their side. That's okay, everybody is, even your friendly TD).

[TylerE]

Now the actual hands are posted, I think at the very least NS get to keep the -1100. 3♥ is totally SEWoG. Ruling for EW will depend on thorough investigation of their actual agreements.

[mycroft]

I see the hands now. I agree with Tyler - 3♥ is clearly someone with a higher opinion of his own abililty than his opponents' (or partner's for that matter). And I don't think that 2♠ showing spades vs showing clubs does anything - if anything it makes the ♠Q marginally more valuable (well, not in this case, but). Unless we can say that the *shape* of West's hand was a factor to the play (in which case, we might award 3♥X-fewer), N gets to keep the score he so gallantly asked for (wow, not even 3532!)

 

I don't, in fact, see that the misinformation led to anything; so I don't think that E-W are going to get a different score (if I were to do that, it would be +110 for 3♣. West, even with the UI, wouldn't pull "no, I have the points, and I have the club suit" with Qxxx.)

 

I will leave it to others to do the play evaluation (especially as we don't have a record of the extant play for -4).

 

But, you know, I wasn't there, I'm only getting one side of the story, I'm not going to overrule the TD at the table, YMMV, I don't speak for the ACBL,...

[mjswinona]

Thanks all for your input. The director (ACBL sanctioned game) never looked at the hands. She awarded ave+ to N-S and ave- to E-W. Confusion in the distribution by declarer led to very poor play, allowing W to score 2 trump tricks by ruffing diamonds and E to also score 2 trump tricks in addition to a spade, a diamond and 2 clubs.

[mycroft]

If the TD decided to rule that the misinformation did not influence the 3♥ call (given that I think that only Ethanoic Acid can influence that call, I'm on board with that) then I could certainly see that it *did* influence the misplay, and award some percentage of 500 and some of 200 instead of sticks and wheels.

 

I, personally, happen to dislike A+/A- when a result has been obtained, because of my reading of the Law and the training I have received. There are cases where it is legal, and I am not going to second-guess that this is one of them (I'm a director. I'm not *your* director. I wasn't there, I only know one side of the story, I'm biased, you're biased, yadda yadda).

[blackshoe]

Mycroft has a point. My gut reaction is that an artificial adjusted score is probably wrong, but there are circumstances where it would be right, so I'll reserve judgement.

[mjswinona]

If the TD decided to rule that the misinformation did not influence the 3♥ call (given that I think that only Ethanoic Acid can influence that call, I'm on board with that) then I could certainly see that it *did* influence the misplay, and award some percentage of 500 and some of 200 instead of sticks and wheels.

 

I, personally, happen to dislike A+/A- when a result has been obtained, because of my reading of the Law and the training I have received. There are cases where it is legal, and I am not going to second-guess that this is one of them (I'm a director. I'm not *your* director. I wasn't there, I only know one side of the story, I'm biased, you're biased, yadda yadda).

 

You have the full story. I think the consensus is that TD should look at the hands before making a ruling. No one in this forum would offer a ruling without information regarding the actual hands.

[Trinidad]

You have the full story. I think the consensus is that TD should look at the hands before making a ruling. No one in this forum would offer a ruling without information regarding the actual hands.

And no one at the forums would rule Ave+/Ave-.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

(given that I think that only Ethanoic Acid can influence that call, I'm on board with that)

Perhaps you should refresh your chemistry.

 

Very few people enjoy consuming large amounts of Ethanoic Acid. This is, next to DHMO, Dihydrogen Monoxide (also known as water), the main ingredient of vinegar. I assume you meant ethanol, which is the characteristic ingredient of many "fun enhancing" beverages that some people enjoy consuming in either moderate, large or enormous quantities, with - as a consequence - moderate, large or enormous effects on their behavior and their judgement.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Perhaps you should refresh your chemistry.

 

Very few people enjoy consuming large amounts of Ethanoic Acid. This is, next to DHMO, Dihydrogen Monoxide (also known as water), the main ingredient of vinegar. I assume you meant ethanol, which is the characteristic ingredient of many "fun enhancing" beverages that some people enjoy consuming in either moderate, large or enormous quantities, with - as a consequence - moderate, large or enormous effects on their behavior and their judgement.

 

Rik

 

I actually think he meant lysergic acid or a derivative thereof, ethanol isn't enough for that bid.

[Trinidad]

I actually think he meant lysergic acid or a derivative thereof, ethanol isn't enough for that bid.

That could do it. After all, with a high dose of ethanol, you wouldn't be able to get the card out of the bidding box. (Which one of the two?)

 

;)

 

Rik

[barmar]

If the TD decided to rule that the misinformation did not influence the 3♥ call (given that I think that only Ethanoic Acid can influence that call, I'm on board with that) then I could certainly see that it *did* influence the misplay, and award some percentage of 500 and some of 200 instead of sticks and wheels.

But he would never have been in the position to make the misplay if he hadn't made the crazy bid in the first place. I think this is the kind of thing the lawmakers intended when they said you lose some of your right to rectification if you take a SEWoG action.

I, personally, happen to dislike A+/A- when a result has been obtained, because of my reading of the Law and the training I have received. There are cases where it is legal, and I am not going to second-guess that this is one of them (I'm a director. I'm not *your* director. I wasn't there, I only know one side of the story, I'm biased, you're biased, yadda yadda).

A+/A- is the ruling of lazy directors, who don't want to try to figure out the likely result absent the infraction, as required by the laws. Our club used to have a director like that, and I frequently had to educate him that it's not legal.

[mycroft]

re OP:

Well, given that you were East, we have the complete story *from your side*, and you are biased by definition. Whether or not you think you are looking at it "without bias", if you actually are, you'll be the first bridge player I've met who can (this includes me).

 

re barmar:

SEWoG says: "[the NOS] does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted." L12C1b. 3♥x is clearly self-inflicted. However, the misplay is (potentially) a result of having the wrong information about the hand shapes, and that is wholly (assuming a ruling of MI, not misbid) the fault of the OS. If we decide to so rule, then neither side should get 1100. Whether the OS should get the result in 3♣ (or 4♣) rather than the result defending 3♥x is another question.

 

re blackshoe:

Well, the laws say it's legal (Law 12C1d), so it has to be possible. Having said that, I've never given one in 17 years of (very part time) directing...